Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream)

Inchworm » 21 Jul 2017, 15:17 wrote:I showed one lately here for length contraction but you did not comment, it happened between two accelerated bonded atoms, and it was due to information taking time to accelerate the second one. Here it is again in case you would like to comment it:

Question, if instead of 'pushing' particle A, you were 'pulling' particle B, would you then have a lingering length expansion instead of lingering contraction?

You read my mind :0), that's what Cooper told me about this kind of contraction, and I gave him the point, because the only way out was that nothing could pull a particle, that particles could only be pushed around, and I was unsure about that. Of course, I had a second thought, and I figured that even if we could pull an atom away from the other atom in my example, its components would still be pushed one against the other, so they would still suffer that kind of contraction if whatever bonds them is not instantaneous. What would happen then during acceleration is that the distance between the atoms would stretch, while the distance between their components would contract, which incited me to have a closer look at the way atoms get pushed: in my example, an atom that is part of a molecule is pushed by another atom that is part of another molecule, thus it is whatever bonds two molecules that tells their atoms not to penetrate further into the other molecule, or not to get away from it.

That kind of bonding is the same as atoms' bonding, it's electromagnetic, and it's a standing wave phenomenon. If we put two sources of identical waves at their standing wave nodes, we get a bonding between them, and if we push or pull one them around, the standing wave will bring them back at the nodes, and it doesn't matter what side of the wave is acting, it is always pushing towards the node. So if we would push or pull one of the sources long enough, it is the other source that would be pushed towards the node after a while, and its motion would push the first source away later on, but the damage would done, contraction or stretching would be done, and only an opposed acceleration could undo them.

That's what would be happening to the atoms of an interferometer if we would accelerate it, so let's analyze that situation, but since we are looking for what is happening at the atom's scale, let's reduce it to three atoms that form a right angle, let's accelerate the vertical arm made of two atoms towards the third atom for a while, and let the system travel by inertia after (we will do the pulling later on). Of course, that arm will move towards the other atom before the information from that motion has the time to move that other atom, so the distance between the arm and the third atom will contract, but the information also takes time between the atoms that form the vertical arm, and if we accelerate its two atoms at the same time, because of the beaming phenomenon, the light that already forms their standing wave will automatically be sent sideways to the motion, and it will hit them exactly at their usual node, which means that their timing would not change during acceleration, whereas the timing between the atoms of the other arm would, and it would stop changing as soon as the acceleration would stop to be replaced by the atoms constantly trying to follow the other atom with a delay. The information that tells the atoms how to move would then be conserved in the form of doppler effect between them, it would thus belong to their standing wave. This way, after acceleration would have stopped, a signal sent from the middle atom to the two other atoms would take the same time to do the roundtrip because light would already be synchronized both ways with regard to the same middle atom.

Now that the pushing is better explained, the pulling part is easier to figure out, no need to describe the whole process, we know that the atoms would move to stay synchronized even if the distance between the two atoms of the lower arm would get stretched during the pulling of the third atom, and we know that they would still move to stay synchronized after the acceleration would have stopped, what would also entertain their inertial motion. If I had the knowledge to build simulations like Cooper's ones, it would be easier to illustrate what I'm saying, but I hope it's still digestible enough for you to be able to discuss it. Notice that even if it seems off mainstream, the way light moves between moving atoms is still an SR issue.

Burt wrote:

Whatever the doppler effect though, as Cooper's simulation on MMx shows, the two way light would still take more time between the two particles once they would be in motion.

During acceleration, the two-way speed of light depends on the direction relative to the acceleration, but once the acceleration stops, the two way light speed returns to its normal 'c', even in LET.

C is impossible to measure one way even during acceleration, so I guess it is impossible to tell the direction of acceleration only while observing light, but we can observe the direction of the force, and we can remember that direction with a light gyroscope, so I figure that the atoms can do that too. With a GPS, we can even know the directions we took all year long, so I also figure that the atoms can do that. The motion an atom has now depends on all the accelerations it has suffered since it is born, so it is a kind of memory of those accelerations, and the way light behaves between my two atoms shows that this memory could be due to the constancy of the only two parameters of light: its direction and its speed.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Jorrie wrote:There are binary pulsars where the orbital velocities of the spinning neutron stars are highly relativistic and they are equivalent to clocks spinning around a hub. The observations agree with relativity predictions to exquisite precision.

Really? Given any Binary Pulsar, all we have to work with is that they share a common Center of Gravity. Not a Hub and Rim. And each Pulsar pulses at it's own rate.. they are not ALL Pulsing at the same rate across the Universe. Are their Orbits perfectly circular or ellipses? So we apply Relativity to the gathered data and make a prediction (a Model) of what is probably going on there. I said "probably" going on.

So of course, there will be a precise match between that gathered data and the Model that Relativity has "Created" from that data.

Meanwhile..

Below is the Lorentz Equation. It specifies the Dilation factor from the velocity of a Mover relative to the Speed of Light. It doesn't concern itself with any other Movers as they have zero effect on the Mover itself (excluding Gravity):

Lorentz Equation

From this Equation we get the following Graph showing the relationship between Mover Velocity relative to Light Speed and the Dilation factor applied to said Mover:

Dilation Graph

The Red Line is the Real Universe. Notice that at about 86% light speed the Clock Rate is divided by 2 (shown as a Red Dot).

I added the Green Line as a make believe Linear Relationship. If the Green line represented Reality, then all one would need to know is the Speed difference between two Movers and you automatically know the Clock Dilation Differential. Or Given: Alice is at Speed (X) anywhere on the Green Line and you Know Bob is faster by a specific Speed than Alice, then we easily know the difference in their Clock Rates. Now that would be True Relativity. All we need to know is the difference in their Relative Speed to each other.. to predict the difference in their clock rate.

BTW.. Just knowing some abstract differential velocity between Alice and Bob doesn't tell you specifically which one is aging faster between the two.. just the dilation differential.. if using the False Green Line. But you don't even get that.. from the Red (Real) Line.

Once one accepts this obvious realization.. then one must also confess that the real Universe represented by the Red Line makes it impossible to calculate Clock Dilation Differentials based solely on the Relative Velocity Differential between two movers.. only.

Thus: Show me any Relativity problem with a single solution and I will show you that problem uses Absolutes. Show me any problem that only concerns itself with the velocity difference between Movers and I will show that problem has an almost infinite number of correct answers (why the Twin Paradox is a Paradox). Not to mention (but I will) why the Centrifuge Experiment exposes so many subterfuge fallacies.

Inchworm.. I believe you are on the right track in regards to the Non-Linear effect that Acceleration has on the Geometry of Matter.. Pulled or Pushed. This will lead you to understand the nature of Gravity eventually (IMHO).

Please Note: I am not a Physicist nor advanced Mathematician.. I am very good at solving problems using Logic and Deduction (Computer Programmer).

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Inchworm wrote:the information also takes time between the atoms that form the vertical arm, and if we accelerate its two atoms at the same time, because of the beaming phenomenon, the light that already forms their standing wave will automatically be sent sideways to the motion, and it will hit them exactly at their usual node, which means that their timing would not change during acceleration

Correction:

During the acceleration, the light from the accelerated atoms would be sent towards the position they would have if the acceleration would immediately stop, so only the light that would be sent at the end of the acceleration would point in the direction of the other atom, which means that this arm would also lose its synchronism during acceleration, which means that Ivanhov might be right about the contraction of the standing wave happening to both arms of the interferometer, a data that he obtained with sound exchanged between two emitters, and with winds of different speeds and from different directions.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory

Dave_Oblad » July 24th, 2017, 8:00 pm wrote:Below is the Lorentz Equation. It specifies the Dilation factor from the velocity of a Mover relative to the Speed of Light. It doesn't concern itself with any other Movers as they have zero effect on the Mover itself (excluding Gravity)

Isn't this true of your green line also? The green line appears to represent the equation:

Dilation = 9(v/c)+1

so it likewise specifies the velocity of the Mover relative to the Speed of Light (albeit in a linear rather than a quadratic form), without reference to any other Movers. The v/c is the crucial part.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

The v/c in relativity's equations has noting to do with "relative to the speed of light" - a concept that seems to exist only in the imaginations of 'absolute framers". V/c is the relative speed between two objects expressed as a fraction of the speed of light - even in LET.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Burt wrote:During acceleration, the two-way speed of light depends on the direction relative to the acceleration, but once the acceleration stops, the two way light speed returns to its normal 'c', even in LET.

To me, the most important difference between increasing speed and constant speed is the way light would behave between my two atoms: it would still take time to make the round trip in both cases, but with acceleration, one of the atoms would move before the other, which means that the distance between them would either contract or stretch depending if we can pull an atom or not. When we pull on a rope for instance, it stretches, but it is because the molecules' bonds are stretching, not the atoms' ones. When we hit a rubber ball, it contracts, but for the same reason. We are able to stretch or contract matter at our scale, but it doesn't mean that we could stretch the distance between two atoms if we were at their scale. Maybe the needed force would exceed our own one, maybe we could not hold them because it would be too slippery, maybe it is impossible to mechanically hold a long chain of bonded atoms so as to be able to stretch it. Enzymes succeed to cut long molecules, but it is a chemical process, not a mechanical one. They would probably not be able to stretch the molecule this way, it would cut before they succeed.

I insist on the fact that no inertial motion would exist if inertial acceleration did not exist. Look carefully at this diagram once more and try to keep in mind that, after acceleration has ceased at t5, each atom would actually be following the information sent by the other atom even if that information takes time. That information would then be written in the doppler effect between them, but it would be unobservable for them because they would actually be moving at the same speed in the same direction. This idea works just the same as time dilation and length contraction, except that it is easier to accept with LET than with SR, but you admit they are the same, so close your eyes and jump in. :0)

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Inchworm » 28 Jul 2017, 17:23 wrote:I insist on the fact that no inertial motion would exist if inertial acceleration did not exist. Look carefully at this I insist on the fact that no inertial motion would exist if inertial acceleration did not exist.

Except that a concept like "inertial acceleration" is foreign to me, your diagram is exactly Einstein's accelerating elevator thought experiment. Just view your black/grey grid as an arbitrary inertial frame (i.e. get rid of the unobervable aether) and you have SR.

And you don't need the complication of pushing or pulling two atoms around - any old elevator with a floor and a ceiling will do.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Do you mean that, if the elevator would be accelerating, it would necessarily be contracting? If so, wouldn't it be easier to understand the phenomenon if we would consider that the contraction would be due to light taking time to hold atoms together?

The differential velocity hasn't changed. Can we keep going up? Bump Alice up to 0.5c and Bob at 0.86c faster? Nope. That puts Bob at Greater than the Speed of Light.. which is forbidden in SR. Thus, even if we call "v" in the Lorentz Equation a Differential Velocity.. it doesn't produce an actual Linear relationship between Movers Clocks.

Proof:

Replace Alice with Zero Velocity for the value of "v" and Bob as an absolute velocity relative to Alice. From this we see Bob has an absolute Clock Dilation relative to "c" at all velocities up to the Speed of Light. At 0.866c, Bob's clocks are dilated at a factor of 2.. or basically running at 50% normal rate of zero velocity.

This is an Absolute Clock relationship relative to the constant Speed of Light for any single Mover as shown in the Chart below (borrowed from Wikipedia):

Basically, SR doesn't change even if we hold one of the movers in 'v' at zero velocity. The other mover is assigned an absolute Clock Rate relative to what it would have been if stationary.

Next, if we hold a constant Relative velocity between Alice and Bob of.. say.. 0.2c.. with Bob as the faster Mover.. then as we move up the scale we see a radical non-linear change in clock rate Differentials between them, especially once we get up in the higher relativistic ranges.

Thus.. simply knowing the difference in their Relative Velocity with each other is utterly worthless. Thus.. Relativity is only useful when we know Absolutes, as in their individual velocities relative to Light Speed.

This is True Relativity. SR is totally valid. But it only works when Absolutes are plugged in.

Thus.. when I hear a Relativist state that Absolutes can't be known.. I am hearing a confession that Relativity only works on paper.

This obviously manifests itself in a simple problem that given Alice has an unknown non-zero velocity and Bob has a precise absolute velocity greater than Alice.. what is the ratio between their clock rates?

Jorrie.. you have already confessed on another thread this problem has an infinite number of solutions. So why do Relativists persist in avoiding Absolutes?

I just don't get that...

Again.. just to be clear.. My problem isn't with SR.. it's with Relativists not admitting SR requires Absolutes.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Inchworm » 28 Jul 2017, 20:42 wrote:Do you mean that, if the elevator would be accelerating, it would necessarily be contracting? If so, wouldn't it be easier to understand the phenomenon if we would consider that the contraction would be due to light taking time to hold atoms together?

No, actual elevators expand when they are accelerated by being pulled upward. This has nothing to do with the speed of light, but with the speed of sound in the material of the cage - the rate at which the extra force applied to the top propagates downward in the material.

Secondly, light does not hold atoms (or molecules) together - nuclear forces do, a regime not covered by either SR or GR.

It is true that light takes a shorter time to travel from the center of the accelerating elevator to the floor than it does to the ceiling, but this very little to do with the expansion/contraction. After the acceleration stops, the elevator rather quickly returns to its normal length.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Hi Dave, I have apparently also lost my reply to your post due to the server problems at SPCF. Here is a repeat of just the most most important point.

Dave_Oblad » 28 Jul 2017, 21:03 wrote:Jorrie.. you have already confessed on another thread this problem has an infinite number of solutions. So why do Relativists persist in avoiding Absolutes?

I just don't get that...

Not surprising when you 'quote' something that I previously wrote, but totally out of context!

What I said is that this problem lies with the "absolute frame" concept and that the problem is totally absent in SR. It is impossible to calculate anything useful if you need to know an object's velocity relative to the unobservable "absolute frame of reference". In SR one can calculate relative to any frame and then observe to confirm the calculations. There is simply no contest!

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Then by all means.. please present an SR problem with just 2 non-zero velocity movers with a specific answer to their clock ratio without using an Absolute.. other than the relative velocity differential between them.

In other words, we have no idea how fast Alice is going but the distance separating them is changing at a rate of 100,000 Kilometers Per Second. How much slower is Bob's clock than Alice's clock?

Note: 1 second is the Time it takes for light to travel 300,000 Kilometers in flat space.

Of course.. this is just the famous Twin Paradox without a turn-around.

Now obviously, we can just slap the Differential Velocity into the Lorentz Equation and get a specific answer. But we have no way of knowing how to distribute the resulting Ratio between both Travelers.

For Example:

1. Bob has 99.9% of the Velocity and Alice is virtually standing still.. thus Bob gets the more slowed clock.

2. Alice has 99.9% of the Velocity and Bob is virtually standing still.. thus Alice gets the more slowed clock.

3. Alice and Bob have the same velocity in opposite directions. Both have slowed clocks running at the same rate.

So, until you nail something down with an Absolute.. no single answer can be realized.

Then we get into Frames where BOTH Twins see the other as having the slower Clock, even if both clocks are actually running at the same Rate. This defines another Paradox in what happens if both are moving towards each other and they meet at some center and they both suddenly snap to the same age.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Dave_Oblad » 30 Jul 2017, 06:06 wrote:In other words, we have no idea how fast Alice is going but the distance separating them is changing at a rate of 100,000 Kilometers Per Second. How much slower is Bob's clock than Alice's clock?

The answer is zero. Clocks in inertial motion do not run slower of faster than any other ideal clock.

Here's proof. Firstly assume they have past each other and noted the reading on the other ones clock. After some time, each fire an identical retro rocket for an identical time as per their own clocks, calculated to bring them to relative rest w.r.t. each other. After some time, they can leisurely confirm through Doppler measurements that they are indeed at rest relative to each other. They can also confirm by two-way radio signals that their clocks have indeed recorded the same elapsed time since their earlier passing.

I'm sure you know all this and I do not need to lecture you on it. The only problem is your clinging to the fallacy of an absolute frame and some absurdity about clock rates that depend on how fast they are moving in this absolute frame.

It is extremely fortunate for us that things do work as SR/GR predicts - without that the GPS (among other things) would not have worked, but that's another long story.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

BurtJordaan » July 29th, 2017, 11:45 am wrote:No, actual elevators expand when they are accelerated by being pulled upward. This has nothing to do with the speed of light, but with the speed of sound in the material of the cage - the rate at which the extra force applied to the top propagates downward in the material.

Secondly, light does not hold atoms (or molecules) together - nuclear forces do, a regime not covered by either SR or GR.

It is true that light takes a shorter time to travel from the center of the accelerating elevator to the floor than it does to the ceiling, but this very little to do with the expansion/contraction. After the acceleration stops, the elevator rather quickly returns to its normal length.

Do you accept that if speed contracts objects, their contraction must begin at the beginning of an acceleration?

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Inchworm » 30 Jul 2017, 16:39 wrote:Do you accept that if speed contracts objects, their contraction must begin at the beginning of an acceleration?

Speed relative to what? Relative speed does not physically contract objects - it is just an observation issue. As you know, each of the partners in relative motion observe the other one as Lorentz contracted.

As I stated in my prior reply, the physical contraction/lengthening of extended physical objects when they are being pushed/pulled by a force, is not a relativistic effect. It is so small relative to the (reciprocal) Lorentz contraction at relativistic speeds, that it is safely ignored in almost all cases, except for studies of extreme acceleration.

As you probably know, I love it to refute "absolutist" claims in terms of the proper interpretation of relativity, but unfortunately my time to spend on it is limited a.t.m. Since this is the 'personal theory' section, you and Dave (and whoever wants to join in) are welcome to continue the discussion.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Jorrie wrote:Here's proof. Firstly assume they have past each other and noted the reading on the other ones clock. After some time, each fire an identical retro rocket for an identical time as per their own clocks, calculated to bring them to relative rest w.r.t. each other. After some time, they can leisurely confirm through Doppler measurements that they are indeed at rest relative to each other. They can also confirm by two-way radio signals that their clocks have indeed recorded the same elapsed time since their earlier passing.

Are you kidding? I have to wonder how many others bought this proof.

Let's pretend Alice has Absolute zero velocity and Bob has an Absolute velocity of 0.5c. To stop the gap between them from getting wider, both can accelerate towards each other. If they do this just right, Alice will Accelerate to 0.25c and Bob will decelerate to 0.25c. Now the gap between them is a constant and both register the same clock rate and both measure the same elapsed time. With one clock picking up rate (Bob) while the other is slowing down (Alice). Nicely balanced and evenly distributed.. but hardly proof.

It's a very different story if Bob is the only one that Decelerates to meet Alice's absolute zero velocity. All the while that Bob is decelerating, his clock is slowly picking up Rate whilst Alice's Clock has been running at full Rate all the time during Bob's Deceleration period. Now, when the distance between them has stopped changing, Bob and Alice will.. at their leisure.. notice very different lapsed times between their clocks that were synced on their passing each other.

Did you really think this technique of splitting the difference would slip past us not noticed?

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Dave, firstly let me ask you: do you really think anyone here buys the idea that you can pretend an "Absolute zero velocity", if such a thing has been proven not to exist by experiment?

Secondly, try to do the calculation for my scenario according to your theory? Make the cruising time since passing a few years and then accelerate them both at a few g's, opposite directions of course - your choice of values. You will be surprised at how large the difference in their respective elapsed times (since originally passing each other) will be - according to your theory. In relativity, the difference will be zero, of course.

Although I'm bowing out for a while, I will consider responding soon, provided that you present a calculation precisely according to your theory.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Inchworm » 30 Jul 2017, 16:39 wrote:Do you accept that if speed contracts objects, their contraction must begin at the beginning of an acceleration?

Speed relative to what? Relative speed does not physically contract objects - it is just an observation issue. As you know, each of the partners in relative motion observe the other one as Lorentz contracted.

Taking a reference frame for granted for a while is like accepting it as an absolute frame for a while, so that when looking at a moving object from that frame, it is naturally the other object that looks contracted. It doesn't mean that this object is contracted, it means that the total of the contractions from both the observer and the object will equal the contraction calculated from this frame, because they might as well be traveling at the same speed with regard to ether.

As I stated in my prior reply, the physical contraction/lengthening of extended physical objects when they are being pushed/pulled by a force, is not a relativistic effect. It is so small relative to the (reciprocal) Lorentz contraction at relativistic speeds, that it is safely ignored in almost all cases, except for studies of extreme acceleration.

Again, I'm not talking about what is happening to the bonds between molecules, but to the bonds between the atoms of those molecules, which should be equivalent to Lorentz contraction since it is about the way light moves between two moving bodies, and that atoms are such bodies.

As you probably know, I love it to refute "absolutist" claims in terms of the proper interpretation of relativity, but unfortunately my time to spend on it is limited a.t.m. Since this is the 'personal theory' section, you and Dave (and whoever wants to join in) are welcome to continue the discussion.

Have a nice time at the beach! I think I'll do that too! For the first time of summer, we're having a few sunny days in a row! :0)

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Jorrie wrote:Dave, firstly let me ask you: do you really think anyone here buys the idea that you can pretend an "Absolute zero velocity", if such a thing has been proven not to exist by experiment?

Yes. Because of the CMB we now have tools to tell us precisely what direction we are heading and how fast. We analyze the red/blue shift of the CMB.

Sky Map of CMB Doppler Shift

We are heading towards the Blue area and away from the Red area. The degree of shift gives us our absolute velocity.

Caltech wrote:At every point in the sky, the spectrum is essentially blackbody, but the spectrum of the dipole is the differential of a blackbody spectrum, as confirmed by Ref. [8].

The implied velocity [9] for the solar system barycenter is v = 368 ± 2 km s-1, assuming a value T0 = Tgamma, towards (ell, b) = (263.85° ± 0.10°, 48.25° ± 0.04°). Such a solar system velocity implies a velocity for the Galaxy and the Local Group of galaxies relative to the CMB. The derived value is vLG = 627 ± 22 km s-1 toward (ell, b) = (276° ± 3°, 30° ± 3°), where most of the error comes from uncertainty in the velocity of the solar system relative to the Local Group.

The dipole is a frame dependent quantity, and one can thus determine the `absolute rest frame' of the Universe as that in which the CMB dipole would be zero. Our velocity relative to the Local Group, as well as the velocity of the Earth around the Sun, and any velocity of the receiver relative to the Earth, is normally removed for the purposes of CMB anisotropy study.

So, if one went to a deep void and manipulated their velocity for uniform distribution of Doppler Dipole information in all directions, one could claim they have zero velocity relative to the CMB rest Frame, which so far, seems congruent with a Rest Frame Relative to the Universe.

Again, I'm not going to calculate your problem because I can already see the symmetry of splitting the difference between Alice and Bob and.. I agree.. both would have the same lapse time. But you haven't addressed my counter proposal of keeping Alice at Zero Velocity and letting Bob do all the deceleration. In such a case it is obvious that there would be a great deal of discrepancy between their final respective clocks.

BTW.. I asked for an example of a nice simple Relativity Problem with a defensible answer that doesn't use implied or real Absolutes. Is that still forth coming?

The Centrifuge Experiment pretty much strips all the hocus pocus away from Relativity and exposes the basic underlying truth.

Anyway, I am grateful that my position on Absolutism only got me bumped from the Physics Forum to Personal Theories. Most other Science Websites usually ban such people as myself and lock threads. Which is why I believe this site is one of the best on the net. Real Science needs to be open to change and such Dogma in the ranks of Science is the very antithesis of progress.

I wish I had more time, but I am up to my arse in alligators.. trying to complete my final job project before I can retire while also fixing up and selling my house to move to Arizona. I'm behind my desired schedule but almost done (14 more days estimated on my last electronics project and 30 days on home escrow).

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

On the beach early morning, South African time, but I just could not withhold comment on the misinterpretations that you have presented.

Scott & Smoot, 2004 wrote:The dipole is a frame dependent quantity, and one can thus determine the `absolute rest frame' of the Universe as that in which the CMB dipole would be zero.

I have read many of their papers and the ''absolute rest frame" that they wrote about here is patently not the "Absolute frame" that you are propagating. It is just an inertial frame that happens to be at rest relative to the average universe at large. It does not have the property that clocks moving relative to that frame 'slow down' or any other of those false interpretations often preached here.

Dave_O wrote:BTW.. I asked for an example of a nice simple Relativity Problem with a defensible answer that doesn't use implied or real Absolutes. Is that still forth coming?

I have given you a simple problem that, should you do the calculations in your theory, you will see that your hand-wavy answer ("they show the same time") does not agree with that result. Alice sits at v=0 and Bob passes at v=0.5c (Absolute) for some time and then they both do the required equal and opposite accelerations (instantly, if you wish), so that they both end up with 0.25c speed relative to 'Absolute frame'. According to your stated theory, they must end up with different elapsed times.

So, once you have escaped from the 'alligators' and have time again, do those sums - they are enlightening. BTW, it was one of the reasons that LET had to abandon the absolute frame and agreed that we can declare any inertial frame as the "reference frame". The only "absolute" in it is that it must be "absolutely inertial".

For the second (round-trip) case that you talked about, there is no disagreement on the outcomes - 'Absolute frame', LET, SR, GR -- they all agree, at least qualitatively on which clock will record less elapsed time for a defined test. But what kills your theory is that in case 1, it throws up a demonstrably wrong prediction, an elapsed time difference where there should be none.

I can understand why persons brought up with the idea that "moving clocks tick slower" battle with this - I have been there myself. It took some time to eventually come to grips with the fact that spacetime path lengths determine proper elapsed times, recorded by clocks "ticking at the same rate", whatever the latter might mean.

It is easy to compare spacetime path lengths in the space-propertime (Epstein) diagramming that I have been advocated for a while now. Minkowski diagrams does the job as well, but due to scale differences between frames in motion, it is not so easy to see and compare - one has to calculate a bit.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Inchworm » 12 Aug 2017, 16:10 wrote:I knew mass increase would happen because of c between my two particles, but I didn't realize that they would take more time to accelerate since I didn't believe in time dilation at that moment.

OK, but avoid the term "mass increase" due to acceleration (or speed). With the term 'mass', we only refer to the rest mass of an object and that's not dependent on its speed relative to anything. We do not refer to "moving mass" (relativistic mass) any more because it is guaranteed to confuse (as it has for decades in the past), since it depends on "who is looking at the object", i.e. the relative speed between object and observer.

As I usually say in this case, considering that a reference frame is at rest for a while is like considering a medium for light for a while. David's simulation of MMx shows that the two way light inevitably takes more time between the two mirrors when the apparatus is traveling than when it is at rest. At .866c, after having accounted for the contraction phenomenon, light still takes twice the time between the mirrors, so if we had to accelerate the apparatus at that moment, light would immediately take more time, which means that the whole apparatus would take more time to accelerate one more m/s in that direction than it took during the precedent acceleration. Of course the increase would be unobservable if we would travel with the apparatus since our own time would dilate at the same rate, but the data shows that the mass of particles really increases when speed increases, and I find that time dilation during acceleration explains very well that phenomenon. How about creating a forum entitled post-mainstream theories? :0)

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Inchworm » 12 Aug 2017, 19:35 wrote:As I usually say in this case, considering that a reference frame is at rest for a while is like considering a medium for light for a while. David's simulation of MMx shows that the two way light inevitably takes more time between the two mirrors when the apparatus is traveling than when it is at rest.

Which is exactly what the MMx and dozens after that have disproved. So are you preferring David's "explanation" over the rest of the worlds? Your choice. Point is, you can't have Lorentz contraction (and hence also time dilation) without having having the same speed of light in all inertial frames.

I think many people still cling to the pre-Einstein explanation for the null result of the MMx, which went out of the window when Einstein came up with his brilliant postulates that explained this -- and a lot of other experiments and observations that followed.

Of course the increase would be unobservable if we would travel with the apparatus since our own time would dilate at the same rate, but the data shows that the mass of particles really increases when speed increases, ...

What data shows that?It seems that you are now stepping back at least a quarter of a century, when "relativistic mass? was still a term flying around. Fortunately, its neck has been properly wrung later. Rest mass is rest mass, irrespective of in which inertial frame the object is at rest or from which frame it is observed.

Inch, I really thought that you were making good progress in understanding SR, but as long as you are clinging to that dinosaur (absolute frame of reference), I think you will be going sideways, at best. ;)

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Inchworm » 12 Aug 2017, 19:35 wrote:As I usually say in this case, considering that a reference frame is at rest for a while is like considering a medium for light for a while. David's simulation of MMx shows that the two way light inevitably takes more time between the two mirrors when the apparatus is traveling than when it is at rest.

Which is exactly what the MMx and dozens after that have disproved. So are you preferring David's "explanation" over the rest of the worlds? Your choice. Point is, you can't have Lorentz contraction (and hence also time dilation) without having having the same speed of light in all inertial frames.

We should always say «the two way speed of light», because it is too misleading for laypeople not to specify it. What the MMx has proved is that the two way speed of light was the same no matter if the earth was rotating with or against its orbital motion. That conclusion was obtained with ether and exported to relativity later, it fits both theories, so I don't understand what has been disproved. All I say is that considering that a reference frame is at rest is like considering that the ether is at rest.

I think many people still cling to the pre-Einstein explanation for the null result of the MMx, which went out of the window when Einstein came up with his brilliant postulates that explained this -- and a lot of other experiments and observations that followed.

His postulate about the speed of light doesn't specify that he is talking about its two way speed, and I find that omission awfully misleading. It's probably the first reason why so many people find that SR is illogical.

Burt wrote:

Of course the increase would be unobservable if we would travel with the apparatus since our own time would dilate at the same rate, but the data shows that the mass of particles really increases when speed increases, ...

What data shows that?It seems that you are now stepping back at least a quarter of a century, when "relativistic mass? was still a term flying around. Fortunately, its neck has been properly wrung later. Rest mass is rest mass, irrespective of in which inertial frame the object is at rest or from which frame it is observed.

In accelerators, when particles are already moving at close to the speed of light, it takes more and more energy to accelerate them, and with E=mc², energy is equivalent to mass.

Inch, I really thought that you were making good progress in understanding SR, but as long as you are clinging to that dinosaur (absolute frame of reference), I think you will be going sideways, at best. ;)

I think I now understand SR, and I can't see any difference with LET, except to build simulations. It seems that Einstein decided it was simpler for him to discard ether, but I think it is simpler for us to learn with simulations, and it is impossible to build a simulation with SR since it takes a background to see things moving, a background that is so similar to ether that I suspect relativists to look away when they are facing such a simulation.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Inch, I'll reply more fully as time allows, but just want to correct one misconception without delay.

Inchworm » 14 Aug 2017, 19:54 wrote:What the MMx has proved is that the two way speed of light was the same no matter if the earth was rotating with or against its orbital motion. That conclusion was obtained with ether and exported to relativity later, ...

Nope. MMx showed that the two-way time that light took in directions perpendicular to each other did not change due to the orientation of the apparatus relative to earth's orbital velocity vector around the sun. Ether theory said that it must change with the orientation of the apparatus and the original ether concept was thus invalidated.

MMx never measured the one- or two-way speed of light, it actually only checked for isotropy (sameness in all directions) of the propagation of light.

You are not alone among the ether supporters that have this misunderstanding of the MMx.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

What was wrong in my answer is this: "What the MMx has proved is that the two way speed of light was the same no matter if the earth was rotating with or against its orbital motion."

It is effectively while turning the apparatus 180 degree that M&M expected a fringe shift (shame on my old mind :0). I didn't mean they wanted to measure the speed of light though, I only meant that light had to travel both ways between the mirrors. The only way to explain the null result was to imagine the contraction of the arm that was aligned with the motion, and since it still took more time for light to do the roundtrip in both arms, time dilation was also imagined. These two additions worked for both SR and LET, so there was no need to discard LET more than SR. IF simulations had existed at that epoch, it is possible that LET would have won the race because I think it is more logical than SR. Imagining a light ray making a zigzag between moving mirrors is the same as drawing the zigzag on a background. There would be nothing to draw the zigzag on if there was no paper or no screen to stay at rest while the zigzag progresses.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Just a minor clarification. Time dilation was not needed to explain the MMx results - physical length contraction alone was enough. However, Lorentz himself had enough physics insight to realize that it inevitably leads to time dilation as well, but he did not offer any mechanism for the phenomena.

It is also interesting to note that in modern SR (in contrast to LET) there exist neither physical time dilation, nor physical length contraction for purely inertially moving objects. They only manifest between inertial frames in relative motion observing one another. In this respect, SR is conceptually way, way simpler than LET.

Re: Experiments Supporting Relativity Theory (off-mainstream

Inchworm » 16 Aug 2017, 15:48 wrote:I know contraction is unobservable, but we have data on time dilation that show it is physical, so what do you mean exactly?

We only have data for reciprocal time dilation (each observes the others clock as dilated) for pure inertial frames without gravity. What you think of is differences in elapsed proper time where the two observers follow non-equivalent paths through spacetime, like the 'away twin' aging less than the 'home twin'. Or the IST astronauts' clocks losing time relative to earth clocks.